'Disappointed' ICC hits back at Faf appeal

ICC Chief Executive David Richardson says the game’s governing body will continue to crack down on players who blatantly infringe when shining the ball, even though he admits it’s a difficult area to properly police.

Richardson, who is in Adelaide to take in the day-night Test match between Australia and South Africa, said he was disappointed that Proteas captain Faf du Plessis has opted to appeal the guilty verdict that was handed down against him earlier this week.

When the 32-year-old was found to have breached the ICC’s Code of Conduct for applying an ‘artificial substance to the ball’ after being caught on camera applying saliva to its surface while sucking on a sweet.

After South Africa unsuccessfully argued over the technical definition of ‘artificial substance’, Richardson identified sunscreen, lip balm and sweets as agents that fitted the definition.

But he acknowledged that while residue from those items have, and will, continue to find their way on to the ball by incidental means, any player caught deliberately using them to shine the ball will be prosecuted under Article 2.2.9 of the Code of Conduct that forbids the use of ‘artificial substances’.

"This has always been an issue that’s been quite difficult to police," Richardson said today in response to du Plessis’s decision to appeal against the guilty ruling that cost him his entire match fee from the second Commonwealth Bank Test in Hobart as well as three demerit points on his disciplinary record.

"Even before we spoke about using mints and sweets, lip ice (balm) - and we’ve been using lip ice and sunscreen on our faces for years - we understand that inadvertently in shining the ball there’s a potential for it to get onto the ball.

"And for that reason we’re not going to go around wildly accusing players of cheating and using the lip ice, sunscreen or sweets.

"We’ve taken the approach that we will only really charge someone if it’s obviously being done for that particular purpose.

"There’s two examples in the past – one was Rahul Dravid (former India batsman who was charged during an ODI Series in Australia in 2004) where he actually took the sweet and rubbed it on the ball.

"You probably couldn’t get more obvious than that.

"And, in our opinion this instance (involving du Plessis).

"So if anyone does something similar we will hopefully get to see it, treat it in exactly the same way we’ve treated Faf in this case.

"These decisions are not taken lightly because it was just so obvious under the current laws that we thought we had to report him."

Richardson said he did not consider that Australia captain Steve Smith’s claim that every international team "shines the ball the same way" was an admission that the use of sweets to alter the condition of the ball was endemic through cricket.

And he refuted suggestions from Cricket South Africa Chief Executive Haroon Lorgat that Richardson, himself a former Proteas Test player, was part of South Africa’s "ball shining brigade" during his playing days.

"I thought that comment was probably inappropriate," said Richardson who played 42 Tests and 122 One-Day Internationals as a wicketkeeper.

"But I can speak for myself and I can confirm - probably because I was the wicketkeeper and had no real need to shine the ball in any way, and I used lip-ice and sunscreen religiously for 30 years – I never put it on the ball."

Richardson also indicated that Lorgat had "jumped the gun" by claiming the issue of artificial substances and ball shining would be examined by the ICC’s influential Cricket Committee at its next scheduled meeting in May.

But he indicated that once du Plessis’s appeal had been heard, the wording and application of Article 2.2.9 would be reviewed as would the relevant laws relating to the issue of the ball.

However, he was critical of the South African team’s initial response to the charge being laid when their players held a media conference in which they all turned out in support of their captain and former skipper Hashim Amla described the charge as a 'farce' and a 'joke'.

"I think it's fair to say I'm disappointed that they (South Africa) don't respect that the laws are there," Richardson said.

"They are there and the process is not necessarily respected.

"I was disappointed in the initial comment that this is a joke.

"But full marks to them, subsequent to that they've acknowledged we attend the hearing, go through the process and follow it.

"So perhaps that initial reaction I thought was uncalled for, but subsequently it's within their rights (to appeal)."

International cricket is more affordable than ever this summer, with adult tickets from $30, kids from $10 and family packages from $65 across every day of international cricket. Price for purchase at match. Transaction fee from $6.95 applies to online and other purchases. For more information and to purchase tickets, click here.